SNP are lying b******s as well !

People seem to forget a SNP treasurer resigned as Murrell never let him get full access to the books, I mean that's a pretty big red flag right there in plain sight.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...s-57299030.amp

I doubt Douglas Chapman was in on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverhibee

Appeared in court on petition and if it goes to trial it will be before a jury.

---

Aye, imagine getting an impartial jury of his peers!!

🤣

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

Murrell was charged with embezzlement so it's moved on. It's taking a ridiculous amount of time, he was charged nearly a year ago and no sign of a court date.

---

My understanding is that embezzlement can be a misappropriation of funds.

That is spending money on something or another when an individual doesn’t have the authority to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

What damage, the SNP are leading in the polls and support for Independence is unchanged, wasn't support for Indy actually higher in the last poll?

Pretty rubbish plot if you ask me, they should all be fired for failing miserably.

---

Can you quantify "failing miserably".

Without the charges against Sturgeon, the tent, the headlines, the constant flow of social media outrage, the irritant of it being mentioned in every discussion by an SNP representative on TV, maybe support for the SNP/independence would be even higher than it is.

Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns

Aye, imagine getting an impartial jury of his peers!!

🤣

---

Low opinion of Scots. Salmond got not guilty and I'm confident the jury will go with the evidence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I’ve always said if there was wrong doing then the SNP is the victim here. And if Murrell is guilty then so be it. The arrest of Sturgeon was entirely without evidence though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

How do you know, the threshold test for arrest is a lot less than for charge. Obviously as one of the named account holders there were questions needed to be asked under caution.

(1) Jolyon Maugham: "Oh look, now her political career is over, the police have dropped their investigation. www.theguardian.com/politics/202..." — Bluesky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

But if this was the big plot to get her and the SNP why hasn't she been charged? Surely that would be the end game in this plot?

---

Job done by implicating her and the favourable British media giving it blanket wall to wall coverage and when not covering it covering ferries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

What damage, the SNP are leading in the polls and support for Independence is unchanged, wasn't support for Indy actually higher in the last poll? Pretty rubbish plot if you ask me, they should all be fired for failing miserably.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

Luckily the people of Scotland agree with me seeing as over 800,000 voted for Labour at the election less than a year ago going from 1 MP at the previous election to 37.

---

Aye, no damage at all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by allmodcons

My understanding is that embezzlement can be a misappropriation of funds.

That is spending money on something or another when an individual doesn’t have the authority to do so.

---

Well thanks for explaining that!

Thing is financial crimes are notoriously difficult to get a conviction on. You've kindly provided a very simple explanation of what embezzlement is.

Most folk don't even know how their bank account works 😂

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

Well thanks for explaining that!

Thing is financial crimes are notoriously difficult to get a conviction on. You've kindly provided a very simple explanation of what embezzlement is.

Most folk don't even know how their bank account works 😂

---

What is embezzlement under the UK law?
It occurs when someone who was entrusted to manage someone else's money or property steals all or part of that money or property for their own personal gain. The offence occurs when an individual has legal access to another's money or property, but not legal ownership of it and they abuse this authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

What is embezzlement under the UK law?
It occurs when someone who was entrusted to manage someone else's money or property steals all or part of that money or property for their own personal gain. The offence occurs when an individual has legal access to another's money or property, but not legal ownership of it and they abuse this authority.

---

Thanks. Makes sense. Good explanation.

Money donated for independence was then used elsewhere without getting the go ahead from the people donating it. Technically a criminal act but stupidity by Morell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-C

Money donated for independence was then used elsewhere without getting the go ahead from the people donating it. Technically a criminal act but stupidity by Morell.

---

"elsewhere" wouldn't be a crime unless it was for PM's personal gain.

Using funds that were ring-fenced for something, and used elsewhere in party business, would be an internal matter between the donors and the party. That wouldn't be criminal.

It's also worth nothing that the party accounts made no mention of any ring-fenced funds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berwickhibby

What is embezzlement under the UK law?
It occurs when someone who was entrusted to manage someone else's money or property steals all or part of that money or property for their own personal gain. The offence occurs when an individual has legal access to another's money or property, but not legal ownership of it and they abuse this authority.

---

My point is that (for the most part I'm assuming dot.netters are a fairly savvy bunch) if embezzlement needs folk on here to explain to others what are the chances of a jury being able to understand it?

Particularly when there's a bunch of lawyers/QCs and whatever trying to confuse those jurors who probably already don't know one end of their bank account from another?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

My point is that (for the most part I'm assuming dot.netters are a fairly savvy bunch) if embezzlement needs folk on here to explain to others what are the chances of a jury being able to understand it?

Particularly when there's a bunch of lawyers/QCs and whatever trying to confuse those jurors who probably already don't know one end of their bank account from another?

---

Financial crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute. I've often thought they should be judged by a specialist court, who at least have a basic grasp of such stuff.

It's therefore the job of the prosecutors to make things as simple as possible for the jury, to get to the actual heart of the charge, and try to blow away any smoke from the defence. Not easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Financial crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute. I've often thought they should be judged by a specialist court, who at least have a basic grasp of such stuff.

It's therefore the job of the prosecutors to make things as simple as possible for the jury, to get to the actual heart of the charge, and try to blow away any smoke from the defence. Not easy.

---

Especially so in very large organisations. I would think that with an organisation as small as the SNP that it should not be too difficult work out what has went on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Especially so in very large organisations. I would think that with an organisation as small as the SNP that it should not be too difficult work out what has went on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Not necessarily so.

In smaller organisations, there are likely to be fewer and less complex controls over things. That makes dodgy behaviour a bit simpler.

Fraud and embezzlement are also more likely if there is less division between functions, eg where the beneficiary is also the person who authorises the expenditure. That's common in smaller organisations. (see Rowling, J.K.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

"elsewhere" wouldn't be a crime unless it was for PM's personal gain.

Using funds that were ring-fenced for something, and used elsewhere in party business, would be an internal matter between the donors and the party. That wouldn't be criminal.

It's also worth nothing that the party accounts made no mention of any ring-fenced funds.

---

That’s because they used that well worn accounting technique of ‘woven through’ instead! [emoji12]

I think it's all assumption what has happened no? I'm sure it will be come clear and people will analyse at that time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

"elsewhere" wouldn't be a crime unless it was for PM's personal gain.

Using funds that were ring-fenced for something, and used elsewhere in party business, would be an internal matter between the donors and the party. That wouldn't be criminal.

It's also worth nothing that the party accounts made no mention of any ring-fenced funds.

---

I think therein lies the problem. The funds were for Independence and during Covid they bought a camper van. They also had to fight 2-3 unexpected elections in fairly quick succession so funds weee used for that.

I’m sure PM’s defence will be that the funds were used towards independence but maybe not as the donors expected.

I also think the donors who donated are the ones who reported it to the police and although independence supporters they now have an axe to grind with the SNP. Wings over scotland etc but that’s only going by some content on X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibs4185

I think therein lies the problem. The funds were for Independence and during Covid they bought a camper van. They also had to fight 2-3 unexpected elections in fairly quick succession so funds weee used for that.

I’m sure PM’s defence will be that the funds were used towards independence but maybe not as the donors expected.

I also think the donors who donated are the ones who reported it to the police and although independence supporters they now have an axe to grind with the SNP. Wings over scotland etc but that’s only going by some content on X

---

If that was the case then there is not a crime, to complete the offence he must have acted unlawfully and there was personal gain.

It's not just the missing £600,000 that is being disputed. It was reported the Police were looking at over 1000 instances of fraud as well as the £600K so it moved on from just where did the missing £600K go. As posted above the SNP treasurer resigned as he couldn't access the relevant financial information from Murrell and claimed a lack of transparency and then the auditors resigned as well, even someone senior like Humza Yousaf said he never even knew the auditors has resigned as it was kept a secret. There was the purchase of the £110K campervan and then the undeclared loans he made to the party as well, I mean all can perhaps be explained perfectly legitimately and that's what I am sure his lawyers will be pulling together in court. You add all these small things together and it starts to build a picture of something though that doesn't quite look right, but a jury of his peers it seems will have the chance to look at all this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

It's not just the missing £600,000 that is being disputed. It was reported the Police were looking at over 1000 instances of fraud as well as the £600K so it moved on from just where did the missing £600K go. As posted above the SNP treasurer resigned as he couldn't access the relevant financial information from Murrell and claimed a lack of transparency and then the auditors resigned as well, even someone senior like Humza Yousaf said he never even knew the auditors has resigned as it was kept a secret. There was the purchase of the £110K campervan and then the undeclared loans he made to the party as well, I mean all can perhaps be explained perfectly legitimately and that's what I am sure his lawyers will be pulling together in court. You add all these small things together and it starts to build a picture of something though that doesn't quite look right, but a jury of his peers it seems will have the chance to look at all this.

---

Is that legit reporting, or is it counting each of a thousand teabags inappropriately used as a separate crime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J-C

Money donated for independence was then used elsewhere without getting the go ahead from the people donating it. Technically a criminal act but stupidity by Morell.

---

What law does this break, technically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Is that legit reporting, or is it counting each of a thousand teabags inappropriately used as a separate crime?

---

"There has been an Amazon account which may have been linked to SNP funds, and purchases from that account are being looked at very closely. There are over 1,000 individual items that the police are looking at as potential instances of fraud and go back a number of years.

Goods range from quite expensive items to relatively cheap everyday products, but the point is that all of these things together could add up to a very serious criminal allegation. Companies and political parties cannot just spend money any way they want - there are rules about how people are paid and there are obviously huge tax implications as well."

Maybe he was buying tea bags, but it wasn't his money to buy tea bags with for his own personal use. If any of us started using the company credit card or petty cash for personal use we would rightly be either disciplined or if serious reported to the police, why would this be different?

Don't you think the resignation of both the treasurer and the auditors points to something not being quite right? I mean that's a big signal something is wrong, but maybe resigning due to lack of financial transparency is normal.

These matters are active under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The provisions of this Act protect the integrity of proceedings, preserve access to justice for victims and secure the rights of people accused of crime.

“Anyone publishing items about active cases is advised to exercise caution as material must not be commentary or analysis of evidence, witnesses or accused. Contempt of Court carries penalties of up to two years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.”

Just saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

"There has been an Amazon account which may have been linked to SNP funds, and purchases from that account are being looked at very closely. There are over 1,000 individual items that the police are looking at as potential instances of fraud and go back a number of years.

Goods range from quite expensive items to relatively cheap everyday products, but the point is that all of these things together could add up to a very serious criminal allegation. Companies and political parties cannot just spend money any way they want - there are rules about how people are paid and there are obviously huge tax implications as well."

Maybe he was buying tea bags, but it wasn't his money to buy tea bags with for his own personal use. If any of us started using the company credit card or petty cash for personal use we would rightly be either disciplined or if serious reported to the police, why would this be different?

Don't you think the resignation of both the treasurer and the auditors points to something not being quite right? I mean that's a big signal something is wrong, but maybe resigning due to lack of financial transparency is normal.

---

If an SNP employee, no matter how senior, has been stealing from the SNP then I hope they get the book thrown at them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

What law does this break, technically?

---

The money wasn't given for normal party use but for an independence campaign which was thwarted by the courts, that money should've been handed back to the members if they wanted it back. Instead it was used for other party matters, I'm sure it was a bitter disgruntled member who brought it to the police's notice. Still wasn't party money to use as they wished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamie_1875

"There has been an Amazon account which may have been linked to SNP funds, and purchases from that account are being looked at very closely. There are over 1,000 individual items that the police are looking at as potential instances of fraud and go back a number of years.

Goods range from quite expensive items to relatively cheap everyday products, but the point is that all of these things together could add up to a very serious criminal allegation. Companies and political parties cannot just spend money any way they want - there are rules about how people are paid and there are obviously huge tax implications as well."

Maybe he was buying tea bags, but it wasn't his money to buy tea bags with for his own personal use. If any of us started using the company credit card or petty cash for personal use we would rightly be either disciplined or if serious reported to the police, why would this be different?

Don't you think the resignation of both the treasurer and the auditors points to something not being quite right? I mean that's a big signal something is wrong, but maybe resigning due to lack of financial transparency is normal.

---

Ta. I'm sure there won't be 1,000 separate charges of fraud relating to Amazon purchases. Don't think anyone doubts that there's been dodgy looking stuff, and quite possibly dodgy actual stuff, going on. Lock him up if he's guilty, but the coverage in general has been ****, even with Sarah Smith safely tucked out of the way in Trumpland.